For decades, science has made few advances regarding when, why, how, and even whether research is utilized in policymaking. Guided by community dissonance theory, this study examines research utilization in an overlooked population-state legislators. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 123 legislators in two states; 32 legislators nominated by their colleagues as exemplar research users; and 13 key informants. Drawing on the lived experience and language of legislators, the study found a slice of issues, segments of policymakers, and points in the policy process where research was used in policymaking. Legislators who were most likely to use research were in the minority party and were "go-to" legislators who developed specialized expertise on an issue. Research was less utilized on issues driven by morality, ideology, or passion. Research was more utilized on issues that were new, nonemotional, or technical, and those for which the legislator had no established position or bipartisan consensus had been reached. Research use was facilitated when it was introduced early in the policy process and made available in committees. The utilization of research depended on its credibility, which policymakers typically assessed by the reliability of the source and, in particular, its nonpartisan reputation among political adversaries. Theoretically, the findings support the predictions of community dissonance theory in explaining and promoting future research use. Pragmatically, policymakers recommended that researchers provide more access to credible research from nonpartisan sources, and communicate in concise and understandable language why the research is important to policymakers and what the core findings are.
Psychologists are known for using science to influence public policymaking on criminal justice, education, health, and other specific policies. Little is known, however, about what commonalities exist across youth and family policies and, in particular, how prevalent polarization and research utilization are in political decisions. In response, this article examines how youth and family policies are positioned on the decision-making agenda and who advances them from an overlooked point of view, that of state legislators. Semistructured qualitative interviews inquired about research use, partisan polarization, and strategies for effectively advancing youth/family policies with 123 legislators; 24 legislators nominated by colleagues as exemplar champions of youth and family issues; and 13 key informants. Policymakers report youth and families are a population deserving of support. This widely shared value premise makes some policies to support youth and families less partisan. In addition, policymakers report that research can sometimes be more important for youth and family issues, particularly evidence on economic feasibility. Despite the importance of research, policymakers express concerns about its objectivity, conflicting results, and source credibility. Compared with colleagues, Youth and Family Champions are committed to a higher purpose; knowledgeable on policy issues and political maneuvers; and skilled in listening, earning colleagues' trust, and building relationships with colleagues and external stakeholders. For connecting research and policy, the article suggests that researchers could attract the attention of policymakers by illustrating their studies with a compelling story that places a human face on the issue and portrays the pragmatic significance of the findings. Public Significance StatementThis article looks for commonalities that cut across specific youth and family policies and finds empirical evidence that policymaking is not polarized on all issues. In particular, there are a pocket of youth and family policies where polarization is less prevalent and science can play a substantive role. Amidst the widespread defeatism expressed by many social scientists, the findings provide a reason for optimism by pointing to places where policymaking functions better and policies are more research-based.
Abstract. The study of leadership is characterized by an expanding set of definitions of the term leadership. Some scholars even set out to know leadership by the identification of traits or behaviors of good leaders. However, the scientific study of leadership requires the identification of a causal theory of leadership. The scientific belief in causation as the common epistemology is the necessary link between the various disciplines interested in leadership (e.g., organizational psychology, statistics, education, or management studies), which allows for the interdisciplinary study of leadership.
The European Commission recently announced a competition policy of what might be called ‘small business tax neutrality’ in several of its state aid rulings. Simply put, states may not grant tax benefits that create a tax advantage to multinational firms in comparison to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As explained in detail here, the United States (US) is engaged in tax competition yielding a structural advantage in favour of US multinationals against European SME’s including by facilitating the avoidance of European tax, which also notably reduces the foreign tax credit offset upon repatriation of earnings to the US. Also, US tax laws grant US multinationals tax incentives on US earnings including special incentives for R&D and domestic manufacturing which are incremental to the lax enforcement of US tax laws on corporate audits especially with respect to transfer pricing. The anticompetitive effect is that US multinationals enjoy a significant trade advantage against their competitors of all stripes and are able to seize market share from European SME’s (just as also occurred in US domestic markets where SME’s were significantly reduced as competition in the US domestic markets over the past decade). Several policy options are provided herein to reduce the competitive advantage of US multinationals in the respective European markets and particularly with respect to European SMEs.
This study brings a fresh perspective to elite polarization by examining how policymakers and party leaders interpret and respond to it. Polarization is examined through the language and lived experience of those most familiar with it—policymakers themselves. Face-to-face interviews posed qualitative and quantitative questions to 212 legislators and 13 key informants from two states that varied in polarization. Most legislators describe polarization in negative terms. Consistent with “Community Dissonance Theory,” analyses reveal differences in a legislature’s institutional culture with policymakers in the more polarized state reporting more fraying of the social fabric and fracturing of decision-making processes. Specifically, legislators report more limited opportunities to build relationships with colleagues across party lines and for the minority party to make meaningful contributions. Corroborating the “Theory of Pernicious Polarization,” polarization appears to function as a relationship-based process that leaders can use for instrumental political ends. Polarization depends on whether party leaders react to rifts in tribal, non-compromising ways and how the minority responds. Consistent with “Conditional Party Governance” theory, party leaders can contribute to dysfunctional polarization by encouraging homogeneity in their own party and polarity from the opposing party. Drawing on policymakers’ own words, states vary in whether elite polarization is dysfunctional.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.